DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on February 17, 2025 has been entered and made of record.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “unit” (i.e., “an image transformation unit”, “a left-right difference estimation unit”, “an image generation unit”, and “an image generation setting unit”) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-9 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: a programmed computer that performs all claim function is described in para. [0053] and illustrated in figures 4,7 and 8, for example.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see M.P.E.P. § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim 10 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claim 11 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is an article of manufacture claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nguyen et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2014/0293028 A1, referred as Nguyen hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Nguyen teaches an information processing device comprising (see para. [0002] and figures 1A-1B and 2, for example):
an image transformation unit configured to perform warping to move a position of a feature point of a right-eye image and a position of a feature point of a left-eye image based on viewpoint information of a right eye and a left eye (see figures 1A and 2: left image 10L and right image 10R; pixel warping 16 and 47 of figure 2; paras. [0033] – [0034] (warping the pixel onto the correct positions; performing warping operation for both left and right views);
a left-right difference estimation unit configured to estimate a portion where a difference exceeding an allowable level occurs, due to the warping, between the right-eye image and the left-eye image, as an inconsistent portion (see figures 1A and 2: left disparity 12L and right disparity 12R; paras. [0023] (left disparity data 12L and right disparity 12R are estimated from the captured views such as left and right image data), [0024] (predetermined range) and [0031] – [0032] (inconsistencies; cracks); and
an image generation unit configured to make a sharpness of the inconsistent portion different between the right-eye image and the left-eye image (see para. [0032] (filling a crack to correct image and the corrected image is illustrated in figure 3B).
Regarding claim 9, Nguyen further teaches an image generation setting unit configured to determine, based on user input information, which one of the right-eye image and the left-eye image is to be an image with high sharpness and how much sharpness is to be different between the right-eye image and the left-eye image (see para. [0025] (user input parameters are used for display setting to achieve a pleasing result).
Regarding claim 10, it is noted the claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations for called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 11, it is noted the claim is an article of manufacture claim and recites similar claim limitations for called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereinafter. Nguyen further teaches a program and memory (see paras. [0067] and [0069] (GPU programming language; graphics card with cores and memory) and [0002] (systems and devices inherently include memory stored programs for rendering multiple views from stereoscopic cameras).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Nguyen as a closest prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “wherein the image transformation unit generates a right-eye warping image and a left-eye warping image by warping a source image based on the viewpoint information, and the image generation unit generates the right-eye image and the left-eye image from the right-eye warping image and the left-eye warping image using a generative model.”
Claims 3-8 variously depend on claim 2 and thus are allowable for the same reasons as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martinez Bauza et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2012/0084652 A1) teaches a 3D image system for adjusting 3D image rendering based on user preferences comprising image source (22 of figure 1; para. [0028] (image source 22 provides a stereo pair images)); disparity processing unit (24 of figure 1; paras. [0028] and [0033] (disparity processing unit 24 uses first view 50 and second view 56 to generate disparity values between the images)); and sharpening the disparity (para. [0048]).
Tu et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2015/0189253 A1) teaches a depth map aligning method and system comprising performing view warping to the left-view image and right-view image (figure 2, S210); estimating residual difference of pixel (figure 2, S220); and correcting a depth value (figure 2, S270).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DMD
9/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights